Re: PPC bn_div_words routine rewrite
> Please do not use previously mentioned routine, it missed 1 corner[color=blue]
> case where 32=num_bits_word(d)
> Revised routine that passes (cd test; make bntest).[/color]
Does it mean that previous version didn't actually pass the test? I mean
if it did on your CPU, but not mine, probably we could learn something
else about ways PPC can be implemented...
> All I had to do is add one more instruction to the routine.
> Please test on your ppc32 machines.
> Once we are all happy,[/color]
Is this your agenda? Make everybody happy:-):-):-) Good luck:-):-):-)
> it's a matter of adding the core dump at the beginning.
> Thus you have a fast,[/color]
32*(div latency + mul latency) is fast? If I call BN_bn2dec in loop it
spins 4 times slower than with current implementation. Well, at least on
computer I have access to...
> easy to understand, predictable bn_div_words, as
> opposed to that monster in 0.9.8.[/color]
Hostility again? Are you saying that nobody understands current
implementation and that it produces unpredictable results? I disagree:-)
> Other architectures will benefit if this C function is used in bn_asm.c[/color]
How? And which architectures exactly? Virtually all 32-bit
architectures, including PPC32, opt for
OpenSSL Project [url]http://www.openssl.org[/url]
Development Mailing List [email]email@example.com[/email]
Automated List Manager [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email]